Minorities and Equal Minorities and Equal RightsRights

By: Brennan Holzer and Patrick MarkeyBy: Brennan Holzer and Patrick Markey

1414thth Amendment Amendment

Section 1.Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. equal protection of the laws.

1414thth Amendment Amendment Section 2.Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the Representatives shall be apportioned among the

several States according to their respective numbers, several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such Statesuch State

1414thth Amendment Amendment

Section 3.Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.such disability.

1414thth Amendment Amendment

Section 4.Section 4. The validity of the public debt of The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.be held illegal and void.

1414thth Amendment Amendment

Section 5.Section 5. The Congress shall have The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this legislation, the provisions of this articlearticle

Plessy v. FergusonPlessy v. Ferguson

The decision of Plessy v. Ferguson in The decision of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 upheld the constitutionality of 1896 upheld the constitutionality of the “separate but equal” doctrine. the “separate but equal” doctrine. This action caused racial differences This action caused racial differences to flourish. to flourish.

Shelley v. KraemerShelley v. Kraemer

In 1945, a black family named In 1945, a black family named Shelley bought a home in St. Louis, Shelley bought a home in St. Louis, Missouri. At the time of purchase, Missouri. At the time of purchase, they were unaware that a restrictive they were unaware that a restrictive covenant had been in place on the covenant had been in place on the property since 1911. The restrictive property since 1911. The restrictive covenant barred "people of the covenant barred "people of the Negro or Mongolian Race" from Negro or Mongolian Race" from owning the property. owning the property.

Shelley v. Kraemer cont.Shelley v. Kraemer cont. This case brought into question whether racially This case brought into question whether racially

based realty covenants are legal under the 14based realty covenants are legal under the 14thth Amendment, and whether such covenants can be Amendment, and whether such covenants can be enforced by a court of law. The judges decided enforced by a court of law. The judges decided “racially-based restrictive covenants are, on their “racially-based restrictive covenants are, on their face, not invalid under the Fourteenth face, not invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment. Private parties may voluntarily abide Amendment. Private parties may voluntarily abide by the terms of a restrictive covenant, but they by the terms of a restrictive covenant, but they may not seek judicial enforcement of such a may not seek judicial enforcement of such a covenant, because enforcement by the courts covenant, because enforcement by the courts would constitute state action. Since such state would constitute state action. Since such state action would necessarily be discriminatory, the action would necessarily be discriminatory, the enforcement of a racially-based restrictive enforcement of a racially-based restrictive covenant in a state court would violate the Equal covenant in a state court would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Brown v. Board of Education Brown v. Board of Education

Decision passed in 1954 that Decision passed in 1954 that overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision. The new ruling stated that decision. The new ruling stated that such laws were against the 14such laws were against the 14thth Amendment, therefore Amendment, therefore unconstitutional. This paved the way unconstitutional. This paved the way for desegregation. for desegregation.

Loving v. VirginiaLoving v. Virginia

Landmark case in 1967 that banned Landmark case in 1967 that banned all anti-miscegenation statutes, laws all anti-miscegenation statutes, laws that banned interracial marriages, or that banned interracial marriages, or even sex between two races. One of even sex between two races. One of the most popular of these laws was the most popular of these laws was created in Pace v. Alabama (1883). created in Pace v. Alabama (1883).

Loving v. Virginia cont.Loving v. Virginia cont.

Pace, an African American man, and Pace, an African American man, and the white woman he was living with the white woman he was living with were arrested. Pace filed a suit were arrested. Pace filed a suit against Alabama, which he lost. against Alabama, which he lost. Loving v. Virginia overturned this Loving v. Virginia overturned this case on the basis of the 14case on the basis of the 14thth Amendment.Amendment.

Swann v. Charlotte-Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Mecklenburg Board of

EducationEducation Ruling passed in 1971 that changed the rules Ruling passed in 1971 that changed the rules

for busing children to school. The Court held for busing children to school. The Court held that busing was an appropriate remedy for the that busing was an appropriate remedy for the problem of racial imbalance among schools, problem of racial imbalance among schools, even where the imbalance resulted from the even where the imbalance resulted from the selection of students based on geographic selection of students based on geographic proximity to the school rather than from proximity to the school rather than from deliberate assignment based on race. It was deliberate assignment based on race. It was the best way to desegregate.the best way to desegregate.

Grutter v. BollingerGrutter v. Bollinger

2003 Supreme Court case that declared 2003 Supreme Court case that declared Michigan Law School’s admission Michigan Law School’s admission practices constitutional. The plaintiff practices constitutional. The plaintiff stated that the schools practices stated that the schools practices weighed heavily on race, and gave weighed heavily on race, and gave favor to minority groups, and was no favor to minority groups, and was no different from a quota system. She felt different from a quota system. She felt as though the “affirmative action” as though the “affirmative action” procedure was against the 14procedure was against the 14thth amendment. amendment.

Grutter v. Bollinger cont.Grutter v. Bollinger cont.

However, the courts held that using However, the courts held that using race as a factor to admission was race as a factor to admission was constitutional while the quota system constitutional while the quota system was not. This majority opinion was was not. This majority opinion was headed by Justice Sandra Day headed by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. While the system was not O’Connor. While the system was not required to change within the school, required to change within the school, it was changed anyways, favoring it was changed anyways, favoring merit just a little bit more.merit just a little bit more.

CartoonsCartoons

PastPast CurrentCurrent